The Axios piece is a bit strange, it suggests that Klein was a driver in having the Democrats not vote for the budget, but fails to mention that it looks like he was left high and dry when the 8 senators did the deal.
Klein is certainly stretching for the middle of the road credibility, he had on Ben Shapiro immediately after the Charlie Kirk assassination, which is a bit like interviewing a stagehand who built the sets about how a play went down.
He also had Amit Segal on about the I/P conflict and prefaced the interview with basically a trigger warning about the views, saying that Segal is 'far to the right' of Klein.
You could ask me what do I expect Klein to do, well, that's his choice, but if it were me, I wouldn't want to cosplay Gen Z David Broder.
3 weeks ago
i thought we were trying to get new blood into leadership?
Ossoff is 38 followed by Lujan and Schatz (both 53) After that, it is Warnock and Booker (56) and Duckworth (57). It's not like there is a lot of choice.
3 weeks ago
nous, is it out of the realm of possibility to imagine Elizabeth Warren? I was looking at seniority and Patty Murray is actually the most senior, I'd like to think that a woman would send a message, though youth is also good. In the imaginary reality that plays in my head, In my dreams, I imagine Bernie changing to Dem and getting put as minority leader, which is why I don't like waking up in the morning now...
3 weeks ago
I'm not trying to bust anyone's chops here, but it is interesting to start at the beginning of the comments, and search for instances of 'Manchin' and see how the discussion takes on a life (or perhaps multiple lives) of its own.
3 weeks ago
I’m not entirely clear why this would be a damning criticism.
I think it is damning because if a bunch of other senators in vulnerable seats are going to these 8, they are admitting that public opinion wants them to fight and they can't acknowledge it.
From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyrapyXZfsA
Shane Goldmacher..there's one no vote that I found especially interesting.
Michael Babaro.: Who?
Goldmacher: John Ossoff. He is the most vulnerable senator up for election next year. So, he will face the voters and he's running in Georgia and really focused on his general election, right? No one's running against him in the primary right now. And what the no vote here says is that he doesn't want to risk backlash from inside his own party in this campaign. Whether that's from a potential primary challenger who could get recruited from one of these angry groups or whether it's the small donors who are fueling his campaign deciding, you know what, maybe we're not so into John Ossoff. He doesn't want to risk backlash.
Babaro; That's fascinating because as you're suggesting, John Ossoff could reasonably be most focused on a Republican opponent in a general election saying you should have voted to reopen the government. That's what matters in this race. And instead, what you're saying is he's more worried about upsetting Democrats in a potential primary. And that's what animated his vote on the shutdown. And in the end, he votes to keep the government shut down because he wants to look like he's on the side of the Democratic base. That's what we think happened here.
Goldmacher:Yeah. And I have not talked to Senator Ossoff here, but what you can see is that there are two choices. Choice one is vote to reopen the government and say, "I'm going to buck my party and I'm going to reopen the government even if people in my left attack me for it." Right? That's a selling point in a lot of places, right? And so here's a Democrat saying, you know, that's not the right calculus here to the extent he's making a politically motivated choice. The right calculus is to make sure that your own party likes you and supports you and sees you as a fighter because you want that energy behind you in a coming midterm election.
If they were voting to give their colleagues cover, it means that their colleagues don't see what is happening as a 4 alarm fire.
3 weeks ago
I haven't read a lot about this, the whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. I did read something along the lines that nous laid out, that maybe the 8 senators, all of whom were not running again, were providing cover for other senators. This to me is an even more damning criticism of the move.
The only silver lining I can see is that Trump will feel emboldened by this and the whole shit show could really explode in their faces. I suppose that the second is that Schumer might get voted out and they get someone who has a spine.
LJ channeling Atrios, interesting!
lol. I am large, I contain multitudes.
The Axios piece is a bit strange, it suggests that Klein was a driver in having the Democrats not vote for the budget, but fails to mention that it looks like he was left high and dry when the 8 senators did the deal.
Klein is certainly stretching for the middle of the road credibility, he had on Ben Shapiro immediately after the Charlie Kirk assassination, which is a bit like interviewing a stagehand who built the sets about how a play went down.
He also had Amit Segal on about the I/P conflict and prefaced the interview with basically a trigger warning about the views, saying that Segal is 'far to the right' of Klein.
You could ask me what do I expect Klein to do, well, that's his choice, but if it were me, I wouldn't want to cosplay Gen Z David Broder.
i thought we were trying to get new blood into leadership?
Ossoff is 38 followed by Lujan and Schatz (both 53) After that, it is Warnock and Booker (56) and Duckworth (57). It's not like there is a lot of choice.
nous, is it out of the realm of possibility to imagine Elizabeth Warren? I was looking at seniority and Patty Murray is actually the most senior, I'd like to think that a woman would send a message, though youth is also good. In the imaginary reality that plays in my head, In my dreams, I imagine Bernie changing to Dem and getting put as minority leader, which is why I don't like waking up in the morning now...
I'm not trying to bust anyone's chops here, but it is interesting to start at the beginning of the comments, and search for instances of 'Manchin' and see how the discussion takes on a life (or perhaps multiple lives) of its own.
I’m not entirely clear why this would be a damning criticism.
I think it is damning because if a bunch of other senators in vulnerable seats are going to these 8, they are admitting that public opinion wants them to fight and they can't acknowledge it.
From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyrapyXZfsA
Shane Goldmacher..there's one no vote that I found especially interesting.
Michael Babaro.: Who?
Goldmacher: John Ossoff. He is the most vulnerable senator up for election next year. So, he will face the voters and he's running in Georgia and really focused on his general election, right? No one's running against him in the primary right now. And what the no vote here says is that he doesn't want to risk backlash from inside his own party in this campaign. Whether that's from a potential primary challenger who could get recruited from one of these angry groups or whether it's the small donors who are fueling his campaign deciding, you know what, maybe we're not so into John Ossoff. He doesn't want to risk backlash.
Babaro; That's fascinating because as you're suggesting, John Ossoff could reasonably be most focused on a Republican opponent in a general election saying you should have voted to reopen the government. That's what matters in this race. And instead, what you're saying is he's more worried about upsetting Democrats in a potential primary. And that's what animated his vote on the shutdown. And in the end, he votes to keep the government shut down because he wants to look like he's on the side of the Democratic base. That's what we think happened here.
Goldmacher:Yeah. And I have not talked to Senator Ossoff here, but what you can see is that there are two choices. Choice one is vote to reopen the government and say, "I'm going to buck my party and I'm going to reopen the government even if people in my left attack me for it." Right? That's a selling point in a lot of places, right? And so here's a Democrat saying, you know, that's not the right calculus here to the extent he's making a politically motivated choice. The right calculus is to make sure that your own party likes you and supports you and sees you as a fighter because you want that energy behind you in a coming midterm election.
If they were voting to give their colleagues cover, it means that their colleagues don't see what is happening as a 4 alarm fire.
I haven't read a lot about this, the whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. I did read something along the lines that nous laid out, that maybe the 8 senators, all of whom were not running again, were providing cover for other senators. This to me is an even more damning criticism of the move.
The only silver lining I can see is that Trump will feel emboldened by this and the whole shit show could really explode in their faces. I suppose that the second is that Schumer might get voted out and they get someone who has a spine.